Pajiba gushes over Tom King's take on Supergirl

A writer at Pajiba gushed over the overrated King's comic starring Supergirl, "Women of Tomorrow", which is being adapted to the silver screen, sadly enough, by James Gunn and company:

My comic book reading has lapsed over the last several years, but I’ll still try to pick up things that I hear good things about and read them when I’m not exhausted and/or staring at the wall. One such comic book that I read somewhat recently was Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, and y’all, it was absolutely incredible. The book, created by Tom King and Bilquis Evely, is a spectacular story about grief, revenge, and holding yourself to a pretty high standard because of the symbol on your chest.

We meet a Supergirl who is very similar to the one that appeared in James Gunn’s Superman, and, by that, I mean that she’s drunk. She’s getting drunk because, unlike her cousin, she was a teenager when Krypton exploded, so she had friends and loved ones and a place where she grew up that were all erased in an instant. She has memories of a homeworld that she will never see again. So, she travels to a part of the universe with a red sun and drinks to forget it all.

The story is filled with a lot of nuance, as Supergirl is then enlisted by a young girl to track down a man who killed her father. While Supergirl is hesitant at first, she eventually joins the young girl after her dog, Krypto, is hurt, and they learn a lot about each other and the cruelty of the universe. I was pretty excited to see that Gunn was touting the book as inspiration for the new movie, but after I read it, I was a little nervous because I don’t know if the movie will live up to the book.

What I don't get is why they think it's such a big deal to portray the Maid of Might as teenage drunkard. Also, if what Inverse tells says anything, a story that relies upon a bizarre hoax - that Krypto wasn't in serious danger to start with - isn't exactly doing much to create drama anyway. So how can the movie live up to the book when the book doesn't live up to real expectations, any more than modern storytelling for the flagship Supergirl? Also, Milly Alcock recently made things worse by stating in a Vanity Fair interview that:

Has the famously fickle Game of Thrones fandom prepared Alcock for the inevitable backlash she’ll face? “It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on. We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women’s bodies,” she says. “I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself.”

Somehow, it's unlikely what she says is based on what kind of horrific leftist propaganda came up in the past decade at the fairer sex's expense. What she's telling is little more than a cheap excuse to avoid challenging queries of what the Supergirl movie's merit will be like, and with a premise like alcoholism, seriously, I don't think it'll amount to much. Any potential political propaganda here will only perpetuate the misgivings. And she makes it sound like nobody ever wanted Supergirl created. Perhaps she should consider what kind of revolting mindsets were working at DC back in the mid-80s, who punished a fictional character instead of any bad writers and filmmakers who dampened Kara Zor-El's legacy as Superman's cousin.

One of the most irritating things about new stories like what King concocted is how a premise that was once considered better suited for a stand-alone indie comic is being forced onto corporate owned creations, and practically compounds why in the long run, conglomerate ownership did DC/Marvel far more harm than good. It's a real shame that here, when it was bad enough the Maid of Might got a poor screenplay foisted upon her in 1984, now Gunn and company are making things worse by adapting woke script for the sake of a newer movie, 42 years after the previous one. Conduct like this is exactly what discouraged me from looking forward to live action adaptations, and feel that, if famous comics creations need any kind of adapting, it should be in animation, but even there, they're obviously not immune to leftist propaganda tampering.

What Tom Brevoort says now about the affordability of crossovers

According to Popverse, one of Marvel's worst modern editors told a podcaster he seemingly recognizes why crossovers have made collectibility too costly:

If you've been collecting Marvel Comics for, say, two or three decades, you've maybe noticed a shift in how the House of Ideas runs its line-wide event tie-in issues. Namely, that they put out less of them. And while there are doubtless a lot of factors that go into that decision (more regular events, a global pandemic, etc.), a deciding factor from within Marvel HQ is simply that, these days, people can't afford to buy tie-in issues.

At least, that's how Tom Brevoort sees it.

Gee, why didn't he consider all that years before? And surely most importantly, why doesn't he consider the vitality of merit-based storytelling? What came as the result of Secret Wars and Crisis on Infinite Earths could've been avoided going forward, but the publishers regrettably came to rely increasingly upon crossovers instead of merit, and that's one of the biggest problems that brought down comicdom in the long run. If Marvel and DC really put out less now, well, they did so awfully late, and after only so much ruination of their cast of characters in the process. As far back as 2 decades ago, DC was the one who first began pandering to woke directions like DEI, and Marvel followed up on that several years later. None of that was merit-based, and coupled with all the line-wide crossovers, made for a very alienating approach going forward.

Marvel's longest-serving editor was recently a guest on the Word Balloon Comics Podcast with host John Siuntres, where the pair discussed Brevoort's storied history of working on line-wide Marvel events. "I've done more of these than anybody," the current X-Men editor said of Marvel's company-wide events, "Every time you try to take the lessons of what you did and apply it to the next one."

Wrong, he didn't, and their discussion of line-wide events proves it. And if we take Avengers: Disassembled and House of M as examples, he let Bendis turn Scarlet Witch into a dishrag. In hindsight, it's sickening, especially now after the WandaVision TV program and the 2nd live action Dr. Strange movie made use of the forced changing of Wanda into a one-dimensional madwoman.

One of those lessons, it appears, is that while comic sales are certainly not crashing, it's less likely that collectors are going to shell out money to collect tie-in issues for every company-wide event, such as last year's One World Under Doom. Although to be fair, you don't have to be an editor at Marvel to know that people's budgets are tighter than they were just a little while ago.

"The reality of the world is different now than it was 20 years ago," Brevoort told his interviewer. "Which is to say: when we were doing something like House of M or Secret Wars, you could do an awful lot of tie-in books and have the expectation that a certain amount of the audience was going to want to read all of those books, and was going to be financially able to read all of those books."

No kidding. The problem is that Brevoort and other staffers like Joe Quesada were counting on the entire fanbase to literally buy these things up completely unquestioned, no matter how poor the story, and no matter how horrific the treatment of the cast of characters was. It's the same with DC under Dan DiDio. This gives a telling clue they were also unofficially relying on speculators to buy these up in hopes they'd be worth a lot of money in the future. But all that did was cause the speculator market to collapse in the mid-90s, and it's only gotten worse since.

"As times have gotten tighter," he concluded, "And belts have gotten tighter, it's maybe not the best idea in the world to go quite that deep, quite that far. If we publish a crossover now and did as many tie-ins as we did in during Civil War, I don't know whether it would succeed or fail, but my guess would be those tie-ins would not perform as well because no one would be able to afford to read them all."

As if we already weren't going to defer to Brevoort's decades of experience in this, our own ailing bank accounts would have us agreeing.

Well why didn't anyone even back then make the point? Better still, why didn't anybody at the time argue that, if they alienated the audience, they can't be surprised if not only sales would decline, but prices would go up as the publishers became desperate to compensate for loss of revenue? This is just another clue what's gone wrong with serial fiction storytelling and publishing, and despite what's told, there's no chance even Brevoort will do anything to mend a horrid situation. After all, what did he do to reverse the severe damage done by erasing the Spider-marriage? Or the maltreatment of Mary Jane Watson and Scarlet Witch, to name but a few examples of Marvel cast members who were wronged? And then they have the gall to talk about company wide crossovers as though it was never a slight to artistic quality. I'm sorry, but despite suggestions to the contrary, this article isn't doing enough to repair the fiasco Marvel and DC became since the turn of the century, and Brevoort should've resigned his positions long ago. If he continues to bog them down with his very presence, it only confirms he hasn't learned any lessons, and if DC hires him despite how clear it is he hasn't or no longer has any talent, that too will make clear they're not learning lessons either. Nepotism is one of the biggest problems in comicdom today, and a leading reason why we still have dreadful figures like Brevoort to contend with, who don't have any genuine remorse over the disaster they turned mainstream comics into.

For this year's FCBD, copies of Lego Batman are being given out

While Diamond Distribution is largely out of business now, FCBD is still going, and Restart reports this year's occasion will see comics based on the Lego Batman game:

For Free Comic Book Day in 2026, fans can collect a free comic book tie-in for the upcoming video game Lego Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight, which tells a standalone story inspired by the game. The comic is called The Lego Batman Returns, and it will follow Lego Batman after he returns to Gotham City after some time away.

While physical copies of The Lego Batman Returns comic will be available for free at participating comic stores for Free Comic Book Day, a digital version will also launch for free on the DC Universe Infinite app on the same day, May 2.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to repair the mess the flagship Batman titles have fallen into, though it's interesting that FCBD is still in business, even though it never proved profitable, and Marvel mostly abandoned it for the sake of a rival project.

I played with Lego toys in my youth, and I think they were one of the best things produced in Denmark decades before, but it's worth noting that, much like several other businesses in the past decade, they too decided to sour their image by going woke. Based on that, who knows if it's a good idea to give even their Lego Batman toys - and comics - a chance at this point if they haven't done enough to mend their image as a children's franchise?

C.B. Cebulski brought Brian Bendis back to Marvel

Publisher's Weekly wrote a fawning interview with the dreadful Bendis, in which we learn who brought him back to Marvel employment. First:

For comic book writer Brian Michael Bendis, the 21st century has been an ongoing education. The writer who first broke big at the turn of the millennium at both Marvel Comics (with his marquee series Daredevil, Alias, and New Avengers, not to mention co-creating the 21st century Spider-Man, Miles Morales) and Dark Horse (where his creator-owned series Powers blended capes with crime fiction) became virtually synonymous with superhero comics over the following decades.

That's a clue to how he's one of the early examples of "woke" writers who created characters like Morales not as their own agencies, but as DEI pandering. I also recall an interview he gave a decade ago where he brought up "whitesplaining and mansplaining", and this was just shortly before Jason Aaron became another noticeable example of a woke writer. I guess that's what Bendis considers an "education", huh? Powers, IIRC, was supposed to be a "noir" tale about investigations into superhero type figures being killed, and after once reading about the premise of the chapter "Who Killed Retro Girl?", I would rather stay away from such smut. It only gives the whole crime noir genre a bad name. It's a shame overrated writers like Bendis are the ones considered worthy of practically taking over a whole franchise and deconstructing it all according to how they see fit.

You’re coming back to Marvel Comics after a decade away. Does it feel gratifying to be a kind of emeritus figure there?

[Marvel editor-in-chief] C.B. [Cebulski] called with exactly the call you would hope for. "Hey, we were thinking of something and we thought, ‘I wish Brian was here.’“ Ever since then, it's been lovely.

I had the oversized [experience] of walking into Marvel [when the company was] in bankruptcy, and just standing there while they rebuilt themselves into what they are now, which is a crown jewel of pop culture. The opportunities were everywhere, and I'd have been a fool not to try everything. I'm glad I did, but it became all-consuming.

Well, it's no longer bizarre somebody as woke as Cebulski himself obviously is would be willing to rehire a figure like Bendis unquestioned. If Aaron's currently not working for them, don't be shocked if Cebulski decides to rehire him soon as well. And it's more like unintentional comedy to say Marvel rebuilt themselves as a publisher, because since the turn of the century, they sank into repetitive line-wide crossovers, never asking if it was a healthy example to begin with, and in the past decade, became alarmingly censorious/deleterious in their approach, with repellently poor artwork being just the beginning, as was the erasure of the Spider-Marriage. As a result, even the live action movies don't age well, because if the zygote's thrown under the bus under the impression moviegoers only care about the live action adaptations, then the movies and TV programs look hypocritical in hindsight.

You started teaching classes at Portland State, and then you created a revived Jinxworld through your own website. Community is clearly something that you're focusing on.

David Walker and I have this class at Portland State University [a writing course for comics and graphic novels] where we literally drag in every one of our friends, and everyone shares their knowledge. It does feel like part of the journey involves education. It brings me an enormous amount of joy.

Ah, the same Walker who exploited their comics for his far-left politics? Again, this says all you need to know that Bendis is as bad as the other wokesters who came after him like Aaron, and again, Bendis did give hints just how repellently leftist he is too. Whatever he's got in store this time, it's bound to be as awful as before, and just compounds why it's a terrible shame Marvel didn't close down in the early 2000s, which could've minimized the damage they'd undergone since. As for Cebulski, I have no idea how much longer he'll continue as EIC, but it's long been apparent he's no salvation for what Stan Lee and his ilk worked hard to develop in the time.

A collector whose piles became too big for comfort

The Lexington Herald-Leader interviewed a comics collector who came to realize his trove had become way too big, and eventually sold them off:

How did Bill Bissett know his comic book collection had gotten too big??

When he was moving, and he had to have a second truck just for his comic books.

That wake up call started Bissett on a downsizing process that whittled his collection down from 150 boxes of books to about 25 now.

At 1 p.m. Sunday, Bissett will share what he’s learned with other collectors in a presentation titled “How to Create a Collection That Doesn’t Make You Crazy” at the Lexington Comic and Toy Convention.

[...] Bissett, 60, has collected comics since he was 11 years old.

But several years ago, after decades of collecting, he said the size of his collection had become so unwieldy, it no longer brought him joy.

“I hated even looking at it,” he said. “There’s a very dangerous border between collector and hoarder.”

Indeed. Especially in an era where much of this stuff has been or will be reprinted in paperback/hardcover archives, and at the same time, why won't guys like him donate their collections to museums? Because:

Bissett said he began ditching comic books if he knew he would never want to read again, trading many of them off for store credit at The Inner Geek in his hometown of Huntington, W.Va.

See, here again is an example of somebody who takes the easy road and hands them over to a store where, if the back issues in question are decades old, chances are the proprietor will charge heavy sums for new buyers, who'll then sell them in turn on the speculator market. I do find it interesting that so far, the guy's jettisoning some of his back issues based on what he cares less about, more on which follows:

Now, he said he has a much more focused collection, and he’s back to enjoying his books.

“If you try to collect everything, you’ll go crazy,” he said.

But Bissett said keeping his collection to a reasonable size is an ongoing process, because he enjoys reading the new material being published, and he gets new comics mailed to his home monthly.

But just because a comic comes into his house doesn’t mean it is part of the collection.

Bissett keeps boxes at the ready for things he plans to dump.

“Comics are a lot like film,” he said. “Some films are very, very thoughtful, thought provoking, you know, emotive. Others aren’t. And comics are very similar, too. There are some that are very surface, simple entertainment, and some that are very, very thought provoking.”

I still don't see why he has to buy almost everything in pamphlet format, though they do provide a photograph where he's reading a DC Finest archive of the original Silver Age Doom Patrol stories. And that, seriously, is what he should really invest in, so why doesn't he clearly emphasize that?

Bissett said it’s also important for collectors to plan ahead for what will happen to their collections after their death.

Whether you collect comic books, action figures, coins or spoons, “you better get an exit strategy,” he said.

“Am I going to be buried in a giant sarcophagus?” Bissett joked about his own collection. “I mean, what is going to happen to all these? I doubt my 12- and 14-year-old girls are like, ‘Oh my gosh, Dad’s comics are all mine!’”

He said a New York Times article reinvigorated him to think about that topic, because it’s “almost unfair” to burden family members with a giant collection of something they really don’t want.

He cautioned that collectors planning to divest themselves of collectibles should prepare for disappointment, knowing they probably won’t get back the amount of money they invested.

Yet nowhere in the article does he or the interviewer talk about the possibility of donating to museums, this despite how much of what he's collected could since have been reprinted in paperback/hardcover formats. Which makes this all the more disappointing. So on the one hand, he may not have tried to encourage his children to try the same reading hobbies as he has, yet on the other, he won't transfer his pamphlets to museum archives either. What good is that? Yet another example of a collector who's disappointing the medium by not encouraging better formats and other approaches to how comicdom could operate going forward in this day and age.

A medical comic about health disorders

The Korea Times wrote about a free medical-themed comic focused on tic disorders:

Woongjin Foundation has published a medical comic book explaining tic disorders and will distribute it for free, the foundation said Thursday.

The 80-page illustrated guide, titled "Understanding Tic Disorders," is the latest in the foundation's ongoing series, "Rare and Incurable Diseases Explained in Comics," which it has produced in partnership with medical professionals since 2008. This edition marks the 30th installment of the series.

Tic disorders affect the neurological system responsible for movement and sensation, causing affected individuals to repeat specific muscle movements or sounds involuntarily. The condition is visible enough that those around a patient can typically notice it. More than 10 percent of elementary school students experience tics at some point, though most cases improve as children grow older.

[...] The foundation's chairman, Shin Hyun-woong, said in the book's foreword that he hopes the publication will give tic disorder patients and their families "new hope and courage," while also helping correct misconceptions about the condition that have spread online and other forms of media.

This is what's great about the comics medium, when it can be employed for explaining serious scientific issues, including health-based.

Jim Lee regrets drawing Aquaman with chainmail outfit, but not his role in damaging the DCU's coherency

Popverse says artist and DC executive Lee told at one of the recent conventions he didn't like drawing Aquaman with a chainmail costume, something Captain America was drawn with at times:

Every artist has their pet peeve, and for Jim Lee it’s chainmail. The superstar artist, who is also the publisher of DC Comics, isn’t a fan of chainmail on superhero costumes because they’re a pain to draw. When asked about the hardest characters to draw, Lee didn’t hold back.

“Anyone that has chainmail on their tunic,” Jim Lee says during a spotlight panel at MegaCon 2026. “Unfortunately, when I was drawing Justice League for the New 52, I decided to draw chainmail on Aquaman’s tunic. I regretted that.”

If he's never drawn Red Sonja, whose bikini-style outfit was often drawn as chainmail, that's decidedly a good thing. Besides, if memory serves, Lee watered down his character designs for the ladies in the past decade, and since the turn of the century, he's wasted whatever artwork he's done on the worst directions DC could go in.

On which note, he's never expressed any regret for the role he played in destroying the DCU's coherency, and that take on the Justice League from nearly 15 years ago was little more than a pathetic continuation of that. They mostly abandoned their "New 52" direction after something like 5 years, along with the status quo set by Identity Crisis, but much damage still remained, and till this day, we're still shaking off the negative effects it left. There's no telling if any of this will change under WB's new ownership through Paramount. It's precisely why it'd do a lot of good if the publishing arm of DC could be bought out, along with Marvel's from Disney.

Sometimes, I think Lee's one of the most overrated artists in history, and he certainly didn't put his art talents to good use in the past quarter century. So, why must we care if he doesn't like chainmail designs? What really matters is if he cares about the moral integrity and cohesion of DC/Marvel. Judging from his conduct over the past 25 years, he sadly doesn't. When will he resign and move on already? He's just not a good fit for them in the end.